LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




012 025 936 2 



HoUinger 

pH8.5 

Mill Run F3-1955 



1860 Association. I 
Tract. Uo. 2. / 



STATE SOVEREIGNTY 

AND TOE 

DOCTRINE OF COERCION, 

BY THE 

HON. WM. D. POETER- 

TOGETHER WITH A 

LETTER 



' E 440 

.P82 
^ Copy 2 



HON. J. K. PAULDING. 

FOURIER SEC. OF NAVY. 



THE RIGHT TO SECEDE 



BY 



S T A. T E S." 



^S Read and send to your Neighbor, "^^gr 



\ 






1- 



l-ll 



STATE SOVEREIGNTY 

AND THE 



I DOCTRINE OF COERCION. 



To THE Men of the South: 

The recent speech of Mr. Douglas at Norfolk, in which he 
threatened the Southern States with military coercion in the 
event of secession, ought to startle and arouse the people of those 
States, like the blast of a liostile trumpet at midnight! The 
time, the place, and the circumstances under which this threat 
was uttered, give the last rinish to its audacity and sanguinary 
significance! 

The election of Lincoln is now well nigh certain. Nothing 
short of a miracle can prevent it. Lincoln is the chief and expo- 
nent of a party that is purely sectional — a party that has no foot- 
hold or resting place south of a geographical line, precisely 
separating the slaveholding from the non-slaveholding States. In 
fifteen Slates of the Union it has no countenance or recognition. 
The avowed object of this sectional party in seeking power, is to 
inaugurate and establish a policy in the government hostile to the 
peace and safety of the slave States, derogatory to their honor, 
and ultimately subversive of their whole social polity; in a word, 
to proscribe them and put them under the ban of the govern- 
ment, with a view to their demoralization and ultimate ruin. 
This is their great, if not their sole, bond of union. Of course, 
some are animated by fanaticism, some by the hope of spoils, 
some by the lust of power, some by one motive, and some by 
another; but the principle of union, the cement, the thing that 
bands the party together and keeps it together, is hatred of sla- 
very and slaveholders — a bitter, malignant, calculating hatred; 
and a settled determination to use all the powers and agencies of 
government to dishonor, cripple and destroy them. The powers 
and agencies of government / Consider it for a moment in this 
point of view. If there be any virtue in government, it consists 
in justice, equality and the duly of protection. Its proper func- 



tions, in reference to its own citizens or subjects, are those of 
peace and security. It is intended as a sliield, not as a sword ; as 
a dispenser of blessings, not as a scatterer of curses. What do 
you, M'hat can you, think of that government wliich, forgetting its 
own nature, abandoning its proper duty, and perverting to the 
purposes of annoyance and destruction what was intended for the 
most kindly and beneficent action, shall deliberatelj'^ and avow- 
edly employ its resources and its powers to promote discord, to 
stir up sedition, to rend the country asunder, and array one part 
of it in mortal hatred against another — to proclaim and inaugur- 
ate between the institutions of one section and those of the other 
an irrepressible conflict., which must inevitably lead to issues of 
life and death, and can terminate only in subjugation 'on one 
hand or disruption on the other! And what are those powers and 
resources? The purse and the sword — the revenue, the mail, the 
army and the navy! Money which is called the sinews of war — 
and the army and navy, which have been aptly styled the talons 
of national power! These resources, drawn from the bosom of 
tile country, to be turned against it for the purpose of rending, 
subduing and crushing it ! Have you pondered well what it is to 
have the Avhole power of a great government like ours, civil as 
well as military, in the cabinet as well as the field, legislative, 
executive and perhaps judicial, systematically directed to your 
injury and oppression? The appeal is to you, men of the South! 
I know you have thought of it, but I fear you have not measured 
it in all its length and breadth and depth. You have thought of 
it speculatively; but you ha\e not yet been called to feel, by 
experience, the iron hand of a hostile government laifl upon you in 
deadly earnest. When you shall have felt it, your day of safety 
will have been Avell nigh spent. Ireland could tell you a tale ! 
and Poland and Italy ! and from Italy you may yet learn another 
and a nobler lesson ! 

Are not the designs of the Republican Party aggressive, hos- 
tile, and deadly? I say of the Party, for as long as these designs 
were confined to individuals, although insulting and mischievous, 
they could not aspire to any great dignity or consequence. But 
since they have been adopted and proclaimed by a great sectional 
party embracing a majority of the States of the Union, and that 
party is about to be called, by the popular voice, to assume the 
responsibilities and %vield the entire power of the national gov- 
ernment, it is abundant time, (if indeed it be not too late,) for the 
weaker and the menaced section, to anticipate the coming blow, 
to repudiate the degrading domination-, and taking counsel of its 
courage and its hopes, rather than of its fears, to resume into its 
own hands, the means of safety, and the control of its destinies 
for the future. And because the people of some of the Southern 
Stales, in view of an exigency of so great peril, have dared to 
discuss their grievances and their remedy, and have announced 
their determination not to be made the subjects and slaves of a 



consolidated despotism, Mr. Douglas has thoujrht proper to put 
foward his veto and liis threat! Not a Bhiclf Republican! from 
such it would have been in perfect keeping, and although it 
min-jii have excited indignation, would not have occasioned sur- 
prise. But Mr. Douglas^ a Democrat, the professed friend of the 
South and Southern^ rights, standing on tlie soil of Virginia 
consecrated by the birth and triumph of the true State Rights 
doctrines, has proclaimed in the face of a portion of her people, 
his hope that " the President, whoever he may be, would treat 
^ attempts to break up the Union, by resistance to its laws, as 
Old Elickorv treated the nuUifiers in 18'32," and his deiermina-. 
tion'to sustain <' with all his energy," the President in so doing. 
If the genius of the proud Old Dominion looked down upon the 
scene in which this insultinof bravado was greeted by some of her 
own sons with "applause"" and "cheers," how must she have 
bowed her head in sorrow and shame at the degeneracy of her 
children ! If Mr. Douglas was bold, defiant, and m'^nacing, how- 
supple and submissive were his liear'^rs 1 He threatened a sover- 
eign State with coercion ; timj, the citizens of a sovereign State 
that was the nursing mother of the right of secession, and has 
maintained it without question for over sixty years, received the 
threat of chastisement, not only without a murmur, but with man- 
ifestations of delight. Shade? of Henry, of Mason, and of Jeffer- 
son ! vvhere has 5'our spirit fled— how have your teachings been 
despised? This is, indeed, to kiss the hand and the rod that are 
uplifted to smite*! 

But is it legally and constitutionally true, that a State cannot 
withdraw from the Union, (however urgent the causes,) without 
incurring the pt^nalty of being coerced into submission? If her 
honor and safety demand a separation from the federal govern- 
ment, has she so parted with the control over her own internal life 
and destiny, as to be powerless in her own behalf, nerveless for 
her own defence? Has she stripped herself so bare, and bound 
herself so fast, that no attribute of sovereignty remains to her fof 
the protection of the property, liberties and lives of her cit-zens 
within her own limits, against the avowed hostility of a Federal 
Union, which has a-^sumed its worst and most dangerous form — 
that of a sectional domination, animated by fanaticism and the 
lust of spoils and power? These are grave questions, and upon 
their solution the very existence of the Southern States may be 
said 10 depend. 

At Norfolk, Mr. Douglas had no hesitation in saying that he 
would advise and vindicate resistance to '* //ic Southern States," it 
they undertook to secede from the Union upon the inauguration 
of Abraham Lincoln. At .Tones' Wood, near New York, he 
attempted to explain or qualify, by drawing a distinction between 
a State, and the citizens of a State. The distinction between cit- 
izens acting .vithout the authority of their State, and citizens acting 
not only wFth the authority but under the mandate of their Statu 



IS just and well founded ; but this is not the one recognized by Mr. 
Douglas. He says that a State cannot commit treason against 
the Federal Government, but that her citizens may. What a 
pitiful evasion ! This is his concession to State Rights ! Who 
ever supposed that the State, as an abstraction, could commit 
treason; could be tried, condemned, and executed! The whole 
question is whether or not the State can release her citizens from 
their obligations to the federal authority, and protect them under 
the sufficient shield of her own sovereign authority! This is the 
right which Mr. Douglas absolutely denies, except in the way of 
revolution; but which Herschel V. Johnson, his colleague on the 
presidential ticket, has said, is "the last and only hope of the 
South." If there be such a right, then the States are sovereign 
and independent; if there be not, then they are amalgamated and 
fused down, hopelessly and helplessly, into one government and 
one people. In the one case the government is a union of States 
founded upon good will, confidence and afiection ; in the other it 
is a consolidated despotism, to be held together by the sword and 
the bayonet. In the one case, the States have in their own hands 
the right and the power of peaceable redress for intolerable 
wrongs; in the other, they must wade to it through blood and 
slaughter. It behooves the South, as the weaker section, (when 
the government is about to become purely sectional,) to see that 
she does not surrender or compromise a right which will be her 
only hope of salvation, unless she rises in her inight and rends 
the Union into fragments. The people that cannot or will not 
protect themselves — that are not sufficient to their own proiection, 
are already no better than slaves. They have their masters; 
and their property, their liberties and their lives are no longer in 
their own keeping. Their doom is sealed, and it is a doom of 
infamy ! And what is worst of all, they will have invited and 
deserved it ! 

Our doctrine is that the States, before the adoption of the Con- 
stitution, were sovereign and independent; that the Federal Union 
is a union of States, and that the Constitution is a covenant or 
compact between them and the fundamental law of their Union; 
and that inasmuch as the covenant or compact was between sover- 
eigns, and there is no umpire or common interpreter between 
them, each has the right to judge for itself of infractions of the 
contract, and to determine for itself the mode and measure of 
redress. 

If these premises be true, it results from the sovereign charac- 
ter of the States and from the nature of the compact of union, that 
any State, which conceives herself aggrieved beyond endurance, 
may, at her sovereign will and pleasure, shake off the bonds of a 
broken covenant and seek her safety in a separate nationality ; 
and that the true and only check on the capricious or unwise exer- 
cise of this great sovereign right, is to be found in the condition 
of isolation and comparative weakness to which she will expose 



7 

V 

herself in so doing. Of the prudence and expediency of this last 
resort, her people must judge for themselves and their posterity, 
under the gravest and most solemn responsibilities that can be 
devolved upon them. But they will so judge, feeling and knowing 
that there can be no greater calamity llian a voluntary submission 
to tyranny. 

No fact in our political history is more certain than that the 
thirteen colonies began the contest with Great Britain as distinct 
communities, and came out of it severally sovereign and indepen- 
dent States. Even the articles of confederation, which was a 
mere league, offensive and defensive, was not ratified by any ot 
the States until three years after the beginning of the war, and two 
years after the Declaration of Independence; and it was three 
years more before it was ratified by all of them. Any colony 
might have declined to enter upon the revolution. Upon the 
Declaration of Independence, each became dejure an independent 
and sovereign State, and upon the acknowledgment thereof each 
became sovereign and independent de facto as well as de jure. 
Whether small or great, they were severally States or nations, 
and had their separate local governments in full and efficient 
operation. And each or any of them might have continued in a 
condition of separate nationality to this day, according to its own 
will and pleasure, subject only to the hazards and vicissitudes to 
which all nations are subject. 

A second fact is, that each State adopted the Constitution ot 
1787 for herself, and would not and could not have been bound 
by it, except through the action of a Convention of her own people. 
The seventh Article says, " the ratification of the Conventions ot 
nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Consti- 
tution between the States so ratifying the same.'^ In point of fact, 
two States, North Carolina and Rhode Island, did not ratify, until 
some time after the other eleven ; and it was in their option, as it 
was in the option of each and every State, to have refrained from 
so doing altogether. 

A third fact to be noted is, that the Union created by the Con- 
stitution, was between States or nations, co-equal in all the essen- 
tial attributes of Sovereignty. Thirteen distinctive States, (each 
a nation, however small or weak,) loosely held together by a league 
offensive and defensive, agreed to form between themselves '* a 
more perfect Union ;" and to that end ordained a Constitution for 
the "United States, of America." This phraseology is in utter 
contradistinction to what would be employed for the purpose of 
describing the fusion or consolidation of one collective people. A 
Union of independent and sovereign bodies implies ex vi termini, 
a league, an alliance, a partnership : and the Constitution adopted 
by them for that purpose, is the compact or fundamental law of 
the league or partnership. 

After all, whatever shape this controversy may assume, it comes 
back at last to the old question between centralism and State 



8 

Rights ; between a consolidated nation, and a confederated Repub- 
lic of Republics. The political facts above stated furnish the 
key to the whole controversy ; and it is only by losing sight of 
them, that any real question can be raised. All States are sover- 
eign, and when they deal with each other, they deal only as 
sovereigns. There is no such thing as Sovereignty in any political 
machinery. Government is simply an agency or instrumentality, 
and it is the people of States that make and unmake governments. 
When States or peoples make a government, they delegate the 
necessary powers and authorities : but delegated power is never 
sovereign, for sovereign power is inherent, original, and self- 
existent. The people that govern themselves in their affairs, 
domestic and foreign, either separately or in common with others, 
through chosen agents, and by delegated authorities, have not 
parted with their sovereignty, and are still in fact and in truth a 
nation. The powers of the State governments, as well as the 
powers of the Federal government, are derived from the peoples 
of the States respectively. These peoples are the creators — and 
the governments are the things created : the former are the prin- 
cipals, the latter are the agents or functionaries. Is it not passing 
strange that ideas should be so confounded, and the order of 
things so perverted as that the inferior should be placed above 
the superior; the changeal)le and fluctuating above the permanent 
and fixed ; the thing made above the power which made and can 
unmake ? 

It is a common error to suppose that the delegation of what is 
recognized as a part of sovereign power, makes the recipient a 
sovereign, and derogates in the same degree from the sovereignty 
of the bestower. Towns and cities exercise sovereign powers, as, 
for example, that of taxation ; but is the town or city the sover- 
eign, or the State rather that gives them their charters and can 
revoke them at will ? And, on the other hand, is any State or 
nation the less sovereign because, for a time, and for its own pur- 
poses, it has conferred these high faculties upon local govern- 
ment agencies ? So long as these faculties or powers are exer- 
cised by delegation, in its behalf and for its convenience and 
benefit, the State or nation is self-governing, because it acts 
through its chosen agents; and is unimpaired in its essential 
attributes of sovereignty, because so soon as shorn of these, it 
ceases to be a State. Nor does the principle vary at all whether 
the delegation has been made to a municipal government, a State 
government or a federal government ; whether it has been made 
in a separate or in a confederated form of polity, or in both com- 
bined. The United States Government derived its being and its 
powers from precisely the same source that the local governments 
did, to wit : from the peoples of the States respectively. ' There is 
no mysticism about its origin. It can claim no higher birth — no 
more dignified ancestry. Nor has it any divine right wherewith 
to hedge itself about, except so far as the voice of many peoples is 



9 

the voice of God. It is of limited powers and for specified pur- 
poses; its ran2:e is circumscribed; there are many things which 
it cannot do, and what it can do, it does in the name and by the 
authority of the States that called it into existence. Whatever of 
power it has, is derived from others, and is held in trust for 
others; and it is, therefore, in no proper sense of the word, 
sovereig7i. 

We may safely assume, then, that the States were sovereign 
and independent before tliey adopted i\\e CoTistitution and entered 
into the Union. Have they ceased to be so, by their participa- 
tion in the formation of ihe federal government ? 

The people of the United States live under two systems of 
government: a system of local government for internal purposes, 
and of general government for external purposes. And in form- 
ing the one as well as the other, they establish Constitutions ; 
and out of these constitutions sprung the governments, which are 
nothing more than public trusts or agencies. What then is a Con- 
stittdion? According to the American understanding, it is a 
written instrument duly authenticated, specifying the powers and 
functions delegated for the purposes of government, and defining 
the extent and limitations of the same. By wliom was the 
Constitution of the United States prepared ? By the States 
through their delegates in convention, at Philadelphia. To whom 
Was it submitted ? To the States, separately and respectively, to be 
approved or rejected by them in their respective conventions, each 
acting for itself. Upon or between whom was it to be obligatory? 
We answer, in the very words of the 7th Article of the instru- 
ment itself, already quoted : " Between the States so ratifying the 
same.'' By whom was it actually ratified? By ihe peoples of the 
several States assembled in their respective conventions. It is 
clear, then, that the parties to this instrument — call it covenant, 
compact, treaty, constitution, or what we will — were States, sov- 
ereign and co-equal ; and that it must be subject to the same tests 
and governed by the same rules which apply to all other com- 
pacts or engagemeats between sovereigns. 

From the imperfection of lans^uage and the ingenuity of the 
human mind, such an instrument as the Federal Constitution 
must be liable, in the nature of things, and in good faith, to a 
diversity of interpretations, as to the extent and limitations of 
the powers granted or reserved. Wiio, then, is to be the final 
judge — the common arbiter? The Constitution itself does not 
name any, so far as relates to political questions — the partition 
lines of power between the States and the General Government. 
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court extends only to ''cases in 
law and equity," and to parties who are amenable to the process 
of the court ; it embraces judicial, not political questions — for 
there are modes of oppression and usurped power which, under 
our forms of law, could never be drawn within the cognizance of 
that department. But the conclusive answer is, that although 



10 

the proposition was frequently and distinctly submitted in the 
Convention, to make the Supreme Court "the tribunal to decide 
in doubtful cases," it did not prevail in any form, and never 
became a part of the Constitution. Attention was expressly 
directed to the matter, and some leading members manifested 
great anxiety because no tribunal had been provided to determine 
finally in controverted cases between the two Governments. 

The question then recurs — who, in the absence of any express 
constitutional provision, is to judge, in the last resort, between 
the contracting parties? The only true and sufficient answer is 
to be found in the rule applicable to Sovereigns. Each must 
hidge for himself. Sovereigns have no superiors : each is equal 
to the other. Honor and good faith are their only bonds. An 
engagement between them broken in part, is broken in whole ; 
and the party injured is released from all obligations. No Sov- 
ereign who believes and declares that a covenant has been vio- 
lated can rightfully be required to observe it longer. Even Mr. 
Webster, who will hardly be suspected of too strong a leaning 
towards State Rights, used the following language in his Capon 
Spring's speech, in 1851 : 

'' I do not hesitate to say and repeat, that if the Northern 
States refuse wilfully and deliberately to carry into effect that part 
of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, 
the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. Jl 
bargain broken on one side is a bargain broken on all sides." 

Let it not be supposed for a moment that the States are less 
than sovereign in consequence of the adoption of the Constitution 
and the formation of the government. A voluntary delegation of 
power in trust does not derogate from sovereignty; nor does any 
compact, treaty or alliance. States frequently enter into engage- 
ments with each other of the most solemn character and under 
the gravest sanctions, whereby they impose upon themselves 
restrictions and prohibitions; but no person at all conversant 
with such matters, ever supposed that they became thereby a 
whit the less independent or sovereign nations. A striking illus- 
tration is to be found in the articles of confederation. Each 
State expressly reserved therein " its sovereignty, freedom and 
independence," and at the same time, all pledged themselves that 
the articles should be inviolably observed by every State, and 
that the Union should be perpetual. It is clear tliat they did not 
consider the preservation of their sovereignty and independence 
at all inconsistent with the obligations of even a perpetual union; 
and we do not suppose a doubt was ever anywhere entertained 
but that it was competent for any one of them, upon cause deemed 
sufficient by itself, to withdraw from the Confederation and 
determine the Union. Nor is there anything in the present Con- 
stitution to prevent the exercise of the same high and sovereign 
right on the part of any aggrieved Slate, whenever her grievan- 
ces shall become, in her deliberate judgment, no longer tolerable. 



11 

There is a theory that we are one nation — one consolidated 
people; and hence the ideas of tlie indissolubility of tlie Union, 
and of tile right to coerce a refractory member. If this be so, is 
it not singular that we have no distinctive name of identity as a 
nation. We call ourselves in common parlance Americans ; and 
yet we are no more Americans than any and all of tlie other peo- 
ples of the continent, North and Soutii. The Canadians are Ameri- 
cans as well as ourselves, but still they have their distinctive 
national title; and so of the Mexicans, 'the Columbians, the 
Peruvians, and every other State or Nation on the continent. "We 
were certainly not so poor, but that we could afford ourselves a 
baptismal name. It would have cost nothing, and would certain- 
ly have nationalized us, if there had been any such design. It is 
believed that Dr. Franklin did suggest the name o( Fredonia, but 
it is certain that the suggestion was not accepted. The constitu- 
tion calls us the "United States of America," or by inversion 
the " States United of America,'" the very title by which we were 
called under the old confederation, when nobody has ever pre- 
tended that we were one nation, and certainly the most descrip- 
tive and appropriate title that could be applied to a confederacy 
of sovereign States in contradistinction to a consolidated nation, 
of which individuals are the constituent members, and States 
only the districts or provinces. Kossuth, whose political insight 
is the fiash of genius, and whose mastery over language is almost 
a miracle, displayed a more intimate and profound knowledge of 
our system than half of our native-born politicians and statesmen, 
when he characterized us, not as a nation, but as a " Conftderats 
Hepublic of Republics." 

Look through the Constitution, and you will not find from begin- 
ning to end, from the preamble to the clause of execution, one sin- 
gle national phrase, idea, or epithet. The States are the dramatis 
personoe, the actors in the scene, the figures that stand out in dis- 
tinguished, nay, in almost exclusive prominence. The govern- 
ment, the Congress, the Treasury, the President and the Vice- 
President, are all of the ''United States." The citizens of each 
State are entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens 
in the several States. The United States guaranty to each State 
a republican form of government. Fugitives from crime or from 
service in any one State are to be delivered up. And the whole 
was "done in convention by the unanimous consent of the States 
present." Instances might be multiplied ; but these will suffice, 
in the absence of any one of an opposite character, to show that 
the whole scheme was federal, and not national ; and that the 
States were recognized as being " not the fractions of a unit, but 
the integers of a multiple." 

But the Union is indissoluble ! This is the catch word of poli- 
ticians, and the standing theme of declamation for Hail Columbia 
and Star Spangled Banner travelling orators ! And it is received 
with immense'enthusiasm by those who find the Union a good 



12 

thing, and are naturally reluctant to lose its benefits. People 
who wish to believe, never require much reason for their belief. 
If this idea of the indissolubility of the Union means anything, 
it means that a dissolution of the Union cannot be brought about 
in any other way than through the action of the people collect- 
ively, with or without arms in their hands; that there is no prac- 
ticable way in which the States, as sovereign members of the 
Union, can quietly and peacefully accomplish that result. If ours 
were a consolidated popular government, such would undoubtedly 
be the case. Let us bring it, then, to the test, and see whether 
there is any mode or process whereby the States or some of them, 
in their corporate capacity, and irrespective of the people collec- 
ively, can arrest the action of the government, and so dissolve 
the Union. By the Constitution, the Senate of the United Slates 
is composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the legis- 
lature thereof; and each Senator has one vote. This provision 
was intended to illustrate the equality of the States as indepen- 
dent communities ; for in the Senate, Rhode Island is as potent 
as NeAV York. Now suppose that a majority of the States, the 
least populous, if you please, and representing but a small 
minority of the aggregate popular vote, should refuse through 
their legislatures or their conventions to choose Senators to Con- 
ore ss ; and that the executives of such States should in obedience 
to the will of their people respectively, decline to make temporary 
appointments. What would be the result? There would be no 
Senate — and consequently, no Congress, because " the Congress 
of the United States shall consist of a Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives," and "a majority of each House shall be a quorum 
to do business." These are not mere rules of procedure, but 
constitutional provisions. In the ^case supposed, the legislative 
powers of the Union would cease to have an abiding place ; and 
the government be reduced to a state of utter prostration. Here 
is no levying of war or shedding of blood; and no regard what- 
soever to the people of the United States in their aggregated or 
consolidated character. All is done by States, and done quietly 
and effectively. Does not this amount to moral demonstration 
that the States in their separate capacities, and without any 
regard to popular numbers, can refuse to participate in the gov- 
ernment, by withholding their representation, and so, by a single 
stroke of peaceful, sovereign action, reauce it, at once, to a caput 
mortuiim! What sort of coercioji would be applicable to such a 
case of treason to the Union ? W^ould the Sergeant at Arms 
summon the States to the bar of the Senate? And by what 
process could he compel the attendance of members who had 
not been appointed? Who would coerce, and whence would 
come the sinews of war, without a Congress? It is too plain for 
argument, that the government would be at a stand, and in the 
event of the persistence of the States, at an end. What a delusion 
is this idea tlaat the Union is indissoluble, or that it cannot be dis- 



13 

solved, except by a revolution of the people in mass, or what is 
the SHtne thing, by force of arms ! , n ■ 

Mr. Webster, in his controversy with Gen. Hayne, and Presi- 
dent Jackson in his famous proclamation against South Carolina, 
laid great stress upon the allegations that the Constitution created 
a government proper, and that it established direct relations 
between this government and the individual citizens of the States. 
There is a class of statesmen in this country who, although they 
do not acknowledge it, believe implicitly in the divine right of the 
government, just as prerogative men in the old world believe in 
the right divine of Kings. And whenever an opportunity occurs, 
as in lb32, 1851, or 1860, the cloven foot shows itself. They 
clamor for State rights; but they are the advocates of force and 
the champions of the inviolability of the Union. There can be no 
doubt that government is an institution of divine origin ; but this 
is very far trom implying that any particular government or form 
of o-overnment is either sacred or necessary. Government consists 
of I'unctions, and functionaries — of law making, law expound- 
ing and law executing departments ; but far above these, the 
amhorand parent of all these, is the Constitution-making power— 
the power of the people or peoples that ordained both the Consti- 
tution and the government. How hard it is to make such persons 
realize the idea that government is only a trust — an agency;— 
not an end, but a rheans to an end. Its pomp and ceremonial, its 
imposing exhibitions of power dazzle and betray them. They 
look upon it as self-existing and self-sustaining. They cannot or 
will not lake it home to their understandings, and keep it there, as 
an elementary eternal truth, that however it maybe elsewhere, 
here, at least, in these United Slates, government is servant, not 
sovereign ; that its symbols and insignia are a borrowed plumage; 
and that its faculties and functions, — its armies and navies, and 
treasuries and tribunals, all belong, not to its administrators or 
functionaries, or any ideal entity or entities, but to those who 
fashioned and delegated them, in order to establish justice, insure 
domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, and secure 
to themselves and their posterity the blessings of liberty forever. 
Whatever may have been the source or origin of other govern- 
ments, we know that the peoples of these Slates, each for them- 
selves, made the government of the United Stales ; and it is impos- 
sible to escape the logical inference and conclusion that the same 
sovereign parlies who delegated the powers and established the 
relations, may, each for themselves, and not for others, recall and 
annul them whenever they become destructive of the ends for 
which they were instituted. 

It may be said that if one party has a right to judge of infrac- 
tions, all the other parlies have the same right. This is con- 
ceded, but the concession does not carry with it the right of the 
government to compel obedience to its authority by force of arms. 
Who are the other parties ? The government if the United States 



14 

did not make itself, nor did it have any hand in making itself; it 
had nothing to do with the formation or ratification of the Consti- 
tution ; it is only a result of the Constitution. As the States, by 
their peoples, severally and not collectively, adopted the Consti- 
tution ; so must they each individually and upon their own respon- 
I sibility, judge of infractions. One State for some alleged breach 

'" may declare the compact at an end, so far as relates to herself, 

and choose secession as her mode and measure of redress ; another 
State or States, denying the alleged breach, may declare war to 
enforce the observance of the compact. But the State that secedes 
becomes ipso facto a separate power, and, therefore the war that is 
declared against her by her former co-States becomes like any 
other war between sovereigns. It is an international war ; nothing 
more, nothing less. States and nations have the right of making 
war with each other, and are responsible only to the tribunal of 
public opinion. But this is a different thing from the right of a 
King or an Emperor to reduce to subjection an insurgent prov- 
ince, or an integral part of his dominions in insurrection. The 
government of the United States has no such kingly or imperial 
prerogative. Even in the case of the American revolution, 
which was that of revolting colonies against the autliority of the 
mother country, those taken in arms, were treated not as traitors 
or rebels, but as prisoners of war. 

From what part of the Constitution is derived the right and 
authority to coerce a State that may, through a convention of her 
people, withdraw herself from the Union as her only means of 
safety, and her refuge from intolerable oppression? It is said 
that it is the duty of the President to "take care that the laws be 
faithfully executed." These words, it is true, are in the Consti- 
tution ; and upon these words the great power in question is 
founded. But this is to beg the question — to assume the whole 
matter in controversy. I have already spoken of the distinction 
between the action of a sovereign State and the action of unau- 
thorized combinations of individuals. So long as a State recogni- 
zes the authority of the Union, her citizens have no choice but to 
obey the laws of the United States ; but, if according to our view, 
she may rightfully secede, then, upon the exercise of that right, 
her relations with the Union are terminated, her delegated author- 
ities are resumed, and the laws of the United States are, within 
her territorial limits, of no more virtue or binding efficacy, than 
the laws of any other foreign nation whatsoever. 

But have Ave no historical proofs or evidences on this point of 
the power to dragoon a State? It could hardly be supposed that 
a matter of such magnitude would altogether escape the attention 
of the convention of 1787; and in point of fact it did not escape 
attention. The journals show that the 6lh resolution of Eduiund 
Randolph's propositions, provided that the federal executive 
should have power "to call forth the force of the Union against 
any member of the Union, failing to fulfil his duties under the arti- 



15 

cles thereof." And Mr. Patterson, also, in tlie 7th Resolution of 
his propositions, after making acts and treaties the suprenne law, 
provided as follows : "And if any State, or body of men in any 
Slate, shall oppose or prevent the carrying into execution such 
acts or treaties, the federal executives shall be aulliorized to call 
forth the powers of the Confederated States, or so much thereof as 
may be necessary, to compel obedience to such acts, or an observ- 
ance of such treaties." In both of these instances, the convention 
was distinctly invited to authorize the employment of the force 
or powers of the Union against any State or member of the Union, 
that should fail to fulfil its duty, or oppose or prevent the execu- 
tion of acts or treaties; but no such provision was inserted in 
the Const it^ition. And whatever force bills or bloody bills, Con- 
gress, in the folly or madness of the time and in the fancied 
plenitude of its powers, has thought proper to enact into laws, it 
has not yet proceeded to such a pitch of infatuation, as to dis- 
figure the federal statute book with any act or acts designed 
to coerce the submission, or compel the return of any sovereign 
State, that might solemnly determine, in full view of all the con- 
sequences and responsibilities, to sever forever ^ler connection 
with the Union, and to place the lives, property and liberty of 
her citizens under the protection of her own separate sovereignty. 

When the foregoing resolutions in relation to the employment 
ol force against a delinquent State were under consideration in 
the Convention, the debates show that all such ideas were repu- 
diated and abandoned, as utterly inconsistent with the form of 
government proposed to be established. No one single member 
advocated force : all of them who spoke on the subject, even 
Alexander Hamilton, the strong government man, par excellence, 
rejected and denounced it. I propose to fortify these assertions 
by citations from Madison's reports of the debates in the Federal 
Convention : 

Mr. Madison observed, ''that the more he reflected on the use of 
force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the 
efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not indivi- 
dually. An union of the Stales containing such an ingredient 
seemed to provide for his own destruction. The use of force 
against a State would look more like a declaration of war than 
an infliction of punishment, and would be considered by the 
party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which 
it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be 
framed as might render this resource unnecessary, and moved 
that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to ?iem. 
con."— 1 vol., 761. 

Mr. Madison again said, "that any government for the United 
States, formed on the supposed practicability of using force 
against the unconslilutiorial proceedings of the States, would 
prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress." 

"Could the national resources, if exerted to the utmost, enforce 



16 

a national decree against Massachusetts, abetted, perhaps, by- 
several of lier neighbors? It would not be possible." — 1 vol., 822. 

Alexander Hamilton, who had hitherto "remained silent," gave 
his views at large on the Iblh June. In discussing the subject 
oi force, he is reported as follows: 

^^ Force, by which may be understood a coercion of laws, or a 
coercion of arms. Congress have not the former, except in few 
cases. In particular States, this coercion is nearly sufficient; 
though he held it in most cases not entirely so. A certain portion 
of military force was absolutely necessary in large communities. 
Massachusetts was now feeling this necessity and making pro- 
vision for it. (The Shay's rebellion.) But how can this force be 
exerted on the States collectively? It is impossible. It arnounts 
to a war between the parties. Foreign powers also will not be 
idle spectators. They will interpose, the confusion will increase, 
and a dissolution of the Union will ensue.''' — 1 vol., 881. 

Col. Mason was opposed to any plan that could not be enforced 
without military coercion. He is reported as saying: 

''The most jarring elements of nature, fire and water them- 
selves, are not more incompatible than such a mixture of civil 
liberty and military execution. Will the militia march from one 
State into another in order to collect the taxes from the delinquent 
members of the Republic ? Will they maintain an army for this 
purpose? Will not the citizens of the invaded State assist one 
another till they rise as one man and shake off the Union alto- 
gether? Rebellion is the only case in which the military force 
of the State can be properly exerted against its citizens. He was 
struck with horror at the prospect of resorting to this expedient." 
—1 vol., 914. 

Luther Martin said : " He was not against assisting States 
against rebellious subjects — thought the Federal -pi an of Mr. Pat- 
terson did not require coercion more than the national one, as the 
latter must depend for the deficiency of its revenues on requisi- 
tions and quotas." — 1 vol., 916. 

Can proof go further? Here is the evidence that the employ- 
ment of force against the States was distinctly proposed ; that 
every member who participated in the discussion, repudiated it; 
and that the proposition was ],ostponed and finally abandoned. 
The reasons against it, assigned in debate, were unanswered and 
unanswerable; and well might the people of the States, with a 
knowledge of the proceedings of the Convention, rest in security 
that no coercion of arms, no declaration of war, as Mr. Madison 
properly calls it, would or could be made against them in their 
sovereign or collective capacity by the political machine which 
they called into action ! 

Upon examination of the ratifications of the Federal Constitu- 
tion by the respective Stale Conventions, it appears that several 
of them asserted, in unequivocal language, the right of the people 
to resume the powers granted, whenever the same should be per- 



17 

verted lO their injury or oppression. Nor does any exception 
appear to have been taken to such declarations. It was with this 
impression and upon this condition that the States ratified the 
Constitution; and when some States affirmed the right exp ressly, 
it was done only from abundant caution, and as declaratory of the 
common understanding. No one State could have, or reserve, a 
right llial was not common to allj any other construction would 
be inconsistent wiili tlie idea that the States entered the Union 
upon terms of equality. "The people," in whose behalf the right 
was claimed, were, of course, the people of the States respect- 
ively; for there is not the slightest foundation in fact or history 
for the pretence that the people of the United States in the aggre- 
gate granted any powers at all, or that the powers of the Fede#al 
Government were derived from any other source whatever than 
lh« peoples of the several Slates, who accepted and ratified the 
same. In this point of view, the argument seems to lie in a very 
small compass. Once admit the principle, which no one in the 
country denies, that the people have the right to resume granted 
powers when perverted or abused; and then admit the /uc/, which 
is historical and cannot be denied, tliat the people of the States, 
respectively, each for themselves, granted the powers now exer- 
cised by the Federal Government — and the inference is logical 
and irresistible, that the people of any State, acting for them- 
selves, may recall the authorities they delegated, whenever, in 
their solemn judgment, their honor or their safety demands it. 
This is not a question of arresting the operations of a Government 
while you remain a member of it; but it is a question of resum- 
ing powers granted for beneficial purposes, but wrested to pur- 
poses of oppression, and of peaceably dissolving connection with 
a Confederated Government, when that Government has ceased 
to answer the ends of confederation. In other words, it is not a 
question of nullification^ it is a question of secession or resump- 
tion. The science of government has made but little advance in 
America if a sovereign Stale cannot retire from a Confederacy of 
Slates, in which she feels herself dishonored and oppressed, with- 
out the iron arm of power being employed to crush her to sub- 
mission. If this be so, it will show that here, as in Europe, 
libert)*can be had only at the price of blood. But this much is 
certain : that here, at least, liberty will be had at whatever price ! 
The delegates of A'ew York, in their ratification, "declare and 
make known:" 

"That all power is originally vested in, and consequemly de- 
rived from the people, and that government is instituted by them 
for their common interest, security and protection. 

" That the powers of government may be rcassumed hrj the people 
whenever it shall become 7iecessary to their happiness ; that every 
power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitu- 
tion clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or the 
departments of the Government thereof, remains to the people of the 
c2 



18 

several States, or to their respective State Governments, to whom they 
may have granted the same," etc., etc. 

Tlie New York Convention certainly stated the case with great 
precision and clearness. All power is derived from the people ; 
Congress has no power except what is clearly delegated ; all 
power not delegated remains to the people of the several States, or 
their State Governments ; and the people may reassume all granted 
power whenever it shall be necessary for their happiness. There 
could not be a clearer epitome of the doctrine of secession or 
resumption. And that there might be no mistake or misunder- 
standing in the matter, the delegates say, in conclusion : ''.Under 
these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be 
abriclged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent 
with the said Constitution, ^-c, we assent to and ratify the said 
Constitution. 

It must be observed that these are not proposed amendments of 
the Constitution, but declarations of right and of the common un- 
derstanding in relation to the meaning of the Constitution. New 
York proposes her amendments in a separate paper. 

Vir"-inia in her ratification declares and makes known : 

"That the powers granted under the Constitution, being de- 
rived from the people of the United States, 7nay be resumed by 
them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or op- 
pression, and tliat every power not granted thereby, remains with 
them and at their will." " TVith Jthese impressions, and with a 
solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts," &c., she assents to and 
ratifies the Constitution. She also proposes amendments in a 
separate paper. 

Virginia speaks of "the people of the United States." There 
is not the same precision of language as in the New York ratifi- 
cation. But the meaning is identical ; for, as the people of the 
United Stales collectively granted no powers, they could resume 
none. Only those who give can take back. The people of the 
States were the grantors, and they alone had anything to resume. 
The reference of Virginia was to these people whom the Constitu- 
tion was to unite. She spoke in tlie name of and in behalf of her 
own people. 

Rhode Island declares and makes known : • 

" Tliat all power is naturally vested in and consequently derived 
from the people— ihat magistrates therefore are their trustees and 
ao-enis, and at all times amenable to them. 

"• That the poivers of government may be reasstimed by the people, 
whensoever it shall betome 7iecessary to their happiness,'" 

Has any one the hardihood to contend that these solemn decla- 
rations mean nothing, or mean only the right of revolution by 
force and with arms? On the contrary, do they not affirm and 
illustrate the one great leading distinction between the American 
and the European iheory of government — between a free confed- 
erated rejjublic and a consolidated kingdom or empire ? Euro- 



li) 



pean goTernment is the government o^ force ; American gov- 
■ernnient is the government of opinion. If such be not the CHse, 
llien did the men of the Revolution live and rebel and triumph in 
vain ! 

Tlie question has been asked, wliether Ijouisiana and oilier 
States, whose territories were originally purcli/ised by the United 
Stales for a price, can j)0ssibly have the right to withdraw them- 
selves from the Union, and lake their affairs into their own keep- 
incT? Undoubtedly they have ! When they were erected into 
States, they became sovereign, and when received into the Union, 
tliey came in upon precisely the same footing as the original 
Thirteen. There can be no discrimination between an old and a 
new State ; nor can the rights of the original members of the con- 
federacy, be in any way impaired or affected b}' the admission of 
new ones. The question must be determined upon the terms and 
meaning of the Constitution, or fundamental compact, and not 
upon any supervening facts or developments. When a Territory 
becomes a Stale, the pupil or infant attains the age, and assumes 
the character and attributes of the full-grown man. When a new 
comer is admitted into a copartnership, upon a footing of perfect 
equality, it matters not whether he has brought into llie concern 
capital, or skiil, or labor, or any other consideration. The United 
Slaies must weigh the consequences of the act, before they convert 
a Territory into a State, and invest a dependency wilh the rights 
and faculties of sovereignty. Jlfler the act is done, it is too late 
to consider. "^I'lie new-born commonwealth is the counterpart and 
peer of all the rest ! 

The Union of these States is a voluntary union — an association 
of equals, of their free will and by common accord. A Slate 
coerced, would be a subjugated province; no longer a voluntary 
or an equal member, but the conquest and the captive of the rest! 
With her freedom cloven down, and the emblems of her sover- 
eignty trampled under foot and trailing in the dust, lier lifeless 
body would be to the living members of the Union, like the dead 
body of Hector, dragged in brutal triumph by the victorious 
chariot of Achilles round the walls of Troy ! Better that ihe last 
sparkles of her ashes were trodden out, and her name forever lost 
to history and tradition, than that she should live to swell the 
triumph of her conquerors! And this to pieserve tlie Union ! A 
union of the living and the dead, bound fast together in loatlisome 
and indissoluble contact! Say rather a union of the dyins; and 
the ikad, for the lite of all w-ill have received a mortal thrust, 
their independence but a name, their forms of liberty an insult- 
ing mockery, and their only privilege that of surviving until the 
iron heel of one or many despots shall be ready in turn to crush 
out the miserable remainder of their existence ! 

Such and so disastrous would be the effect of coercion, even if 
successful. But it could not be successful, — least of all in a case 
of common feeling and common interest. The people of the Stales 



are too spirited and sagacious, not to feel and know that the mili- 
tary conquest of one, in such a case, would involve, sooner or later, 
the military conquest of the rest. The ties of a common cause — 
one hope, one fear, one destiny ; the promptings of generous 
manhood, and perhaps, above all, the over-mastering instinct of 
self-preservation, wpuld drive them into irresistible sympathy 
and association with those, whose only fault would be a disinter- 
ested, if an indiscreet, devotion to the common cause, and >vhose 
prostration would consign it to hopeless and bloody ruin. And if 
the grievance or the quarrel were strictly and purely sectional, 
Avhat human power, m the event of blood, could prevent the injured 
section from uniting as one man, and accepting one fate, whether 
for weal or for wo I Is it not the excess of infatuation, and the 
very extac}^ of madness for any one to imagine that the Union 
could be preserved through a war of sections ? Blood is not the 
cement by which confederacies are held together, nor are bayon- 
ets the instruments. Good will and confidence are their only 
bond. The terrible passions evoked by war are death to them. 
Naught but a despotism can come out of an armed conflict of 
sections, in which one is conqueror ai?d the other conquered. On 
one side centralization and absorption, enforced by the sword j 
on the other, utier subjugation, relieved only by the lurid and 
desperate hope of revolt ! What a picture this of a free govern- 
ment ! and a happy and glorious Union ! 

Hapless would be the condition of these Slates if their only 
alternative lay between submission to a government of self-con- 
strued, or, iti other words, unlimited powers, and the certainty of 
coercion, in case of withdrawal, by force of arms. The way of 
escape from both extremes is in the acknowledged right of seces- 
sion — a right the exercise of which draws after it such grave and 
momentous consequences to a State, in her relations to the rest of 
the States and to the world at large, that she cannot but regard it 
as her ultima ratio — her refuge from intolerable evils — her last 
and ultimate resource to be called into play, only when all other 
hope of relief is utterly gone ! 

But if the right of secession be essential in a general view of 
our system, how trul}'- indispensable is it to the Southern States, 
in view of the particular circumstances by which they are now 
surrounded. I here repeat the question already propounded, are 
not the designs of the Eepublican party aggressive, hostile and 
deadly to these States? To understand this question in its full 
and fearful import, it is necessary to bear in mind that the coun- 
try is divided into two geographical sections, and that these sec- 
tions are characterized by separate and different systems of labor 
and civilization. The system of the South, known as slavt/y, 
existed at the lime of the formation of the Union, and has a dis- 
tinct recognition in the Constitution, both as an element of repre- 
sentation, and as a fit subject of protection. For a considerable 
eriod of time, the two sections of the country were, for all prac- 



tical purpo.-r.o, in a slale of equilibrium ; but now the ascendancy 
in the number of Slates and in the federal representation has 
been acquired by the non-slaveholding section. If there were no 
antaponism of feelinc^ and interest on tlie subject of slavery, and 
the constitutional jjuarantees in relation to it were observed in 
good faith and witli fidelity, tliis ascendancy would furnish no 
good cause of appreliension or complaint. But the precise mis- 
chief and dano;er of the Republican parly consists in tliis: tliat 
IT IS A SECTIONAL, ANTI-SLAVERY ORGANIZATION, 
BASED CHIEFLY, IF NOT EXCLUSIVELY, ON THE 
PRINCIPLE OF HOSTILITY TO THE INSTITUTIONS OF 
THE SOUTH, AND PLEDGED TO CARRY THAT PRIN- 
CIPLE INTO ACTION, IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF 
THE GOVERNMENT. Men of the Soutli do you comprehend 
this idea? Do you take it into your understandings, in the whole 
extent of its significance and consequences. In the case of two 
sections and two systems of labor and civilization, what would 
any man of average honesty and average sense of justice, declare 
to be the duty of the common federal government? Surely that 
ofe(iual favor and equal prelection! But to wage an open war- 
fare upon system and by programme, in belialfof one and against 
the other— and to employ, for that purpose, the agencies and 
resources of the common government, which owes to each a like 
protection because it receives from each a like support — if there 
be a peril more imminent, or a perfidy more atrocious than this, 
in the afTairs of Slate, it is most difficult for the human imagina- 
tion to conceive il, or the human tongue to give it utterance 1 

Will you submit to it? Will you suffer that yoke to be fast- 
ened upon your necks, and still claim to be men and freemen? 
You lAve loner borne and forborne — but there is a time when 
submission becomes a crime and resistance a duly. Abraham 
Lincoln, our prospective President, proclaims the Republican 
party to be "</ progressive party!" Mark the words, for there 
is more in them tlian meels the ear — something of admonition 
and menace ! How progressive has been this whole anti-slavery 
agitation — this whole ivarfare — for it is nothing less — against the 
well being, the peace, nay, the very lives of millions of human 
beings, while and black ! It began with individuals. Giarrison, 
Tappan and Gerrit Smith were of the school. At first, we were 
told to despise their insane ravings; and we can well remember 
the day wlien abolitionists were hooted and pelted, and driven 
from pillar to post in the Northern cities. They persisted; and 
by degrees their doctrines infected larger bodies of men. They 
forced themselves upon popular assemblies, and soon invaded the 
school room and the scliool book, the pulpit and the prayer. The 
leaven spread itself. AV^omen, and clergymen and politicians 
took it in keeping, and nursed it, and kept it warm. With some 
it was genuine fanaticism; with others a sanctimonious and 
Pharisaical hypocrisy — an outcropping of puritanism; and with 



22 

others still, the football of a political game. In process of time, 
the spirit of abolitionism rose in power and in dignity. It lifted 
itself into the halls of legislation. It has since taken possession 
of the State governments at the North. Every Northern Slate, 
east of the Rocky mount aim, has wilfully and deliberately refused to 
carry into effect the provision of the Constitution in relation to the 
restoration of fugitive slaves ; some by prohibiting their officers 
and citizens from aiding in their restitution ; some by denying 
the use of the jails and public edifices for their safe keeping ; 
some by providing means of defence for fugitives from labor; 
some by declaring slaves absolutely free vvhen brought into the 
State; and some by visiting fine and imprisonment upon masters 
seeking to reclaim "their property: thus bringing into play every 
device and variety of legislative action, in encouragement and 
support of the inhospitable, lawless and piratical conduct of their 
citizens and mobs. And now, that the last element of stretigth 
and agency of mischief may not be wanting to this unnatural 
warfare, waged by one section of the country against the vital 
interests of the other, the common federal government, our own 
government, which was designed to insure domestic quiet and 
provide for the common defence, is 'to be seized and appropriated 
by an exclusive, one-sided and fanatical despotism, whose only 
idea and purpose it is, (apart from the spoils,) to wield the whole 
of this vast and powerful machinery for the disturbance of our 
peace, the subverting of our institutions, industrial and social, 
and the subjection of ourselves and our children, in all time to 
come, to the vexatious and- degrading tyrannies of iheir vulgar 
and unprincipled domination. No /o/-p(o-?i government, however 
hostile its intents, could be more malignant in spirit, or more 
powerful for mischief ! * 

How can we judge of this Republican party otherwise or more 
fairly than by their own acts and declarations ? What they have 
done is but an earnest of what they will do. The persistent agi- 
tation of the slavery question in the most offensive and insidious 
forms; the exclusion of the South from the whole of California — 
a territory for which the South had expended more of blood and 
treasure than any other section of the Union; the dismemberment 
of Texas, with the bayonet in one hand and a bribe in the other; 
the rejection of Kansas because the Constitution of Lecompton 
protected slavery; the raid into Virginia, the burnings and poi- 
sonings in Texas, and the movements, incendiary and insurrec- 
tionai-y, of Northern emissaries even now lurking in other parts 
of the Southern country; the sympathy with John Brown, at first 
hardly disguised, but now open and unmasked — a sympathy 
which is c'alculated, if not expressly designed, to incite other 
deluded fanatics to an imitation of his treason and a coveting of 
his'traitorous doom; the endorsement of the atrocious Helper 
book by some sixty members of their party in the present Con- 
gress, and the broadcast circulation of it as one of their campaign 



28 

docuinenls, in the currLMit canvass — all these thinus, and niore, 
many more, wliich it sickens me to rehearse, demonstrate, 
beyond all doubt or cavil, a liostility of purpose, an antagonism 
of spirit and feeling-, a deep and settled hate which, so far from 
being consistent with th(! duties and relations of brethren and 
fellow countrymen, would be a shame and a disgrace to natural 
and hereditary foes I 

William H. Seward is the spokesman of this party — the author 
and finisher of the Black Republican faith! He is a statesman ot 
clear and well-defined, but not large views, and his vision is as accu- 
rate and tliorough, witl)in his limited range, as that of any man of 
his day and country. Cold, sagacious and calculating; too conti- 
nent and self-possessed to be rash, and yet bold enoui:h when 
boldness is consistent with prudence. He is the author of the 
phrase, it not o( the idea, of "the irrepressible conflict between 
opposing and enduring forces;" and also of the doctrine of tlie 
"higher law" — the invention of a vagrant political conscience 
to override all fixed constitutional obligation, for the express pur- 
poses of putting under foot the rights of the South, and the duties 
of the North on the subject of slavery. He sneers, in cold blood, 
at Virginia and Texas, for being "convulsed with panics because 
of slavery being brought into debate among a portion of their citi- 
zens !" The foundation principle of his theory is, that free labor 
and slave labor cannot exist under the same government; and 
that "the United States must, and will, sooner or later, become a 
slave holding nation, or entirely a free labor nation." To the end 
that the latter branch of this necessary alternative may be the final 
consummation, he demands that every new Slate shall be a free 
State; that the army and navy shall be abolished, because they 
are of no service except to protect the slave Stales from servile 
insurrection or foreign invasion ; that the Supreme Court shall be 
destroyed or altogether reformed, and arrayed on the side of free- 
dom instead of the side of slavery; and that tlie perfect freedom 
of all men, black as well as white, should go through the fifteen 
slave States, as it has gone through the eighteen free Stales. 
And he declares to his followers that " if they do not sufier differ- 
ences among tliemselves or any other cause to divide them, ONE 
SINGLE ADMINISTRATION WILL SETTLE ims QUES- 
TION FINALLY AND FOREVER." In aniicipaiion of the 
coming triumph, already has he proclaimed that ihc bailie is ended, 
and the victory icon ! 

Abraham Lincoln is the standard-bearer of the party. He was 
considered tlie more available as their candidate, because his 
antecedents were not so conspicuous as those of his great master. 
But he is the more dangerous of the two, because he is probably 
the more honest in his conviciioift. The one idea certainly has 
complete possession of his brain. Some have advanced his claim 
to the original authorship of the "irrepressible conflict;" witljnut 
using the phrase, he ceriainly promulgated the doctrine when he 



24 

declared, in 185S, that '-this government cannot endure perma- 
nently half slave and half free." Let it suffice for the present 
that Mr. Douglas define the political position of Mr. Lincoln, 
which he did in the following words, in the course of their great 
senatorial contest : 

" In other words, Mr. Lincoln advocates boldly and clearly, a 
war of sections, a ivar of the JVorthas^ainst the South, of free States 
against slave States — a war of extermination — to be continued 
relentlessly, until the one or the other shall be subdued, and all 
the States shall either become tree or slave." 

And this same Mr. Douglas proposes to put the South to fire 
and sword, because it would retire peacefully from the field, rathe.r 
than become a party to this fratricidal strife ot sections, or a meek 
and submissive victim to this relentless war of extermination ! 

Men of the South ! you will soon be called to make choice ot 
your destiny, — to bow your proud necks to the yoke of the task- 
master, or to rise in your strength and rend the manacles that 
would bind you. It is not a question of policy; but of honor, of 
liberty, of p«ace, of existence! Your whole civilization is at 
stake ! It cannot be disguised that there is danger on both sides ; , 
but on one side is honor, on the bth^r dishonor; on one side the 
sure hope of freedom and prosperity; on the other, the certa'n 
doom of demoralization and ruin. In the folly and madness that 
rule the liour, an attempt maybe made to coerce you; but it 
cannot possibly succeed. You are millions in number; but your 
hearts and arms will be as one in defending the sanctity of your 
hearths and homes ! To a people who have once been free, any- 
thing is better than the living death of conscious degradation, and 
the witherina- cont«>mpt of those who have put the yoke upon 
them. Oh ! choose as becomes your lineage and your history! 
Choose so that these proud commonwealths may receive no detri- 
ment; so that the liberties in which you were born may be kept 
entire; so that the heritage of your children may be one of honor 
and not of shame, of freedom and not ot servitude ! 



/ 



FROM 

HON. J. K. PAULDING 



[The following letter from Hon. J. K. Paulding, former Secre- 
tary of the Navy, is worthy of attention, not only for the sound 
views it contain'!, but also on account of the latitude from which 
it comes.] 

Hyde Park, Duchess county, N. Y. ] 
September Gth, 1851. j 
!;Gentlemen: Your letter directed to me at New York, con- 
veying an invitation to address a meeting of the citizens of 
Charleston district, to be held in Charleston, South Carolina, on 
the 17th inst., has just reached me at this place, where I now 
reside. 

For the compliment thus tendered, and the language in which 
it is conveyed, 1 beg you to accept my acknowledgments, accom- 
panied by "regrets that I cannot comply with your wishes. Dis- 
tance and space, the burden of years I should bear with me, and 
more than all, my incapacity for jiublic sjieaking, compel me to 
decline a task for which 1 am totally unfitted. What T have to 
say, I therefore hope you will permit me to address to you, through 
a medium to which I am more accustomed. 

As it appears from the tenor ot your letter that you are 
already sufficiently aware of the opinion I entertain with 
rec^ard to what is whimsically called the Compromise, I will 
only trouble you with a brief recapitulation. In my view it 
loas a gross arid palpable violation of that great fundamental prin- 
ciple of State equality, which pervades every provision of the Consti- 
tution, and forms the basis of this Confederation; a most unjustifi- 
able attack on the rights, interests, safety, and happiness of one-half 
the States composing it, accompanied by insult and obloquy ; a pre- 
tended Concession, icrested by mere force of numbers from a minority; 
and that, in its consequences, it trill prove more fatal to the repose, 
prosperity, and happiness, if not the very existence of the Union, 



26 

than any measures that may he resorted to in attempting to obtain 
redress for the past, or security for the future. 

Such beinfr my views of the subject, I am and always have 
been, of opinion, tliat the stand originally taken by South Caro- 
lina, and most of the Southern States, in opposition to the princi- 
ples embodied in that series of measures, was not only justifiable, 
but demanded by a proper regard for their rights and their honor ; 
and that an abandonment of the position they tl^en assumed, and 
an acquiescence in measures they repeatedly declared they 
would resist, ** at all hazards and to the last extremity," unless 
accompanied by a frank acknowledgment of having been lorong in 
the first instance, would, in the language of the printed resolu- . 
tions appended to your letter, be, " what they could not submit 
to without dishonor." If such an abandonment of all previous 
pledges and declarations were the result of a subsequent convic- 
tion of having greatly erred in making them, it would be honor- 
able and magnanimous. But sucii appears not to be the case j 
since even tlie advocates of acquiescence still continue to assert 
the principles on which these pledges and declarations were 
based, as well as the wrongs which first called them forth. 

The Association is, I believe, right in its second resolution — 
declaring its belief that the co-operation of any of the Southern 
States with South Carolina, either in resistance or secession, is at 
least improbable, so long as the influence and patronage of the 
General Government are arrayed against State rights. Nor Ao I 
see any reason for believing that any probable change of admin- 
istration, will produce a change' of measures; since, as you will 
perceive, from their repeated declarations, all parties in tlie North 
unite in denouncing slavery, and maintaining the constitutional 
right of Congress, as well as its inflexible duty, to prohibit its 
extension to any State that may hereafter be admitted into the 
Union. From all present appearances, the principles embodied in 
the compromise icill continue to be the basis of the future policy of 
the Government. It seems also probable, //laif the States which 
have submitted to past, will be equally quiescent under future 
wrongs. 

Having thus briefl}'- staled my views with regard to jovu first 
and second, I will n,ow revert to your last and most important 
resolution, namely, "that, failing in a reasonable time to obtain 
the co-operation of other Southern States, South Carolina should 
alone withdraw from the Union." 

It seems rather late in the day to be called on to combat the 
old exploded doctrine of passive obedience, and non-resistance, 
the assertion of which cost one' monarch his head, and sent 
another into perpetual exile. Yet, as that doctrine has lately 
been revived by some of the highest names of the Republic, it 
calls for a passing notice in connection with the subject of this 
letter. It seems strange, too, that this long-buried monster, 
which received its death wounds in the two revolutions of Eng- 



27 

land and America, should have been dug' up and resuscitated by 
distinguished Democratic Republican statesmen. From all but 
the darkest regions of tlie civilized world, this portentous phan- 
tom has been banished, as it would appear, only to find refucre in 
that which professes to be the most free and enlightened. There 
is not a European icriter, or statesman, or theologisf, of any estab- 
lished reputation, that would noio venture to proclaim the slavish 
principles which have been asserted by Republican leaders in the 
Halls of Congress of Republican States. 

A thorough discussion of this doctrine of passive obedience 
and non-resistance on the part of equal members of a Confedera- 
tion of States, would require more space than is proper for me to 
occupy, and more time than you can s])Hre on this occasion; nor 
do I deem it necessary. The right of resistance by force, as 
respects States and communities, is only an extension of the 
individual right of self-defence, which is a law of nature, ante- 
cedent and paramount to all laws and all constitutions, winch 
cannot be alienated or surrendered by the adoption of any system 
of social organization. This doctrine is established beyond con- 
troversy, by the unanswered and unanswerable arguments of 
Sidney and Locke ; by the assent of all the great ancient as well 
as modern authorities on tlie law of nature and nations; and, if 
such were not the case, it has always been, and always will be, 
acted upon when the occasiop arises, in opposition to all authori- 
ties. It is true that none of the writers who assert or concede 
the right of resistance, liave attempted to define the precise line 
where resistance becomes justifiable, because it is not susceptible 
of definition. R is a matter of feeling, and can neither be analyzed 
or defined. 

An eminent American statesman, hio-h in office, and a candi- 
date for still higher honors, whose opinions I wish to treat with 
all due respect, has lately attempted to establish a broad distinc- 
tion between revolution and secession ; in other words, the right 
to resist, and the right of retiring out of the reach of the necessity 
of resorting to resistance. His position, if I rigliily comprehend 
him, is, that though a people or State may have a right to resist 
by force in certain contingencies, they have none to retire peace- 
ably beyond the reach of injury and oppression. It seems they 
have no alternative; tliey must either peaceably submit, or for- 
cibly resist, for they cannot get out of the way. It follows that 
all radical changes in the political relations of a Stale with a 
Confederation of States, must necessarily be broucrht about by 
violence and bloody contentions. Those who cannot live tocether 
in peace, must not part in peace ; they must resort to the right of 
the strongest, and fight it out. 

Thus the extermination of a portion of our fellow-creatures, 
perhaps our countrymen, is an indispensable preliminary to all 
great political changes; and hecatombs must be ofiered up on 
tlie altar of liberty, before she can become a legitimate goddess. 



28 

The establishment of this principle, conceding the right of revo- 
lution, and denying that of secession, would, in its application to 
the case now under consideration, leave no resource to any mem- 
ber of this confederation, under the most intolerable oppression, 
but civil war, with all its aggravations. It leaves open no appeal 
to the great tribunal of reason, justice and humanity; the right 
of the strongest is the right divine; and dissensions among aeon- 
federation of Christian States, can only be adjusted, like those of 
the wild beasts of the forest, by a death struggle. I am aware 
that this has been the almost invariable practice of mankind in 
every age and country; but never till now do I recollect seeing, 
it asserted that it was the only justifiable mode of settling con- 
troversies among States and nations; and ii is with no little 
regret I see this doctrine sanctioned by one whose opinions are of 
such high authority among a large portion of the Atnerican peo- 
ple. I'^have dwelt more emphatically on this topic, because I 
consider the right of secession as by far the most important of all the 
guestions involved in the present controversy; and the attack on it 
as one of the most insidious, as well as dangerous blows, ever levelled 
at therights of the State, all of whom are deeply interested in the 
issue; since those who are now the aggressors, may one day be 
placed in a position where it will be their only refuge from the 
uncontrolled despotism of a majority. 

With regard to the expediency of the State of South Carolina 
exercising this right of secession, either now or at any future 
period, it would, I conceive, be presumptuous in one so far re- 
moved from the scene of action to offer his opinion, or intrude 
his advice. In such a crisis, South Carolina must act for herself , 
and reh/ on herself alone. I would only observe, that in taking a 
step so decisive as that of withdrawing from the Union, unanim- 
ity among her citizens, or something nearly approaching it, seems 
indispensable. It appears, however, that many distinguished 
men among you, whose reputation is national, whose opinions are 
entitled to great weight, and who have heretofore taken the lead 
in opposing the Compromise, believe that the time for secession 
is not yet come ; that the co-operation of at least a majority of 
the Southern Slates is absolutely necessary to the successful 
issue of such a measure; that it is best to wait for further injur- 
ies, or at least to see whether they will be attempted, and if so, 
whether they will produce such co-operation. Those whose 
views coincide with the resolutions adopted by your Association, 
on the other hand, believe that immediate secession, or secession 
after '< waiting a reasonable time" 'for the co-operation of other 
States, is indispensable to the safety and honor of the State of 
South Carolina. Which of these parties will eventually pre- 
dominate, remains to be seen; and until that is decided, I shall 
content myscff with asserting the right of secession, leaving the 
expediency of its exercise to be decided by the result. Should 
it be found that a very considerable minority is not only opposed, 



29 

but will resist a resort to this remedy for their grievHnces, I con- 
ceive its immediate adoption would be hazardous in the extreme. 
BUT WHEN GREAT INTERESTS ARE AT STAKE, 
MUCH SHOULD BE RISKED IN 'J'HEIR PRESERVA- 
TION. For myself, I will only say, that were I a citizen of 
South Carolina, or any other Southern State, I trust I should not 
be found among those, who, after placing themselves in front of the 
battle, and leading their followers into a position whence they could 
not retreat without dishonor, rktiued prom the field, only, it 

"WOULD SEEM, TO SEE IF THE ENEMY WOULD PURSUE THEM. 

A few words more, Gentlemen, in order that I may not be 
misunderstood or misrepresented, and 1 will no longer trespass 
on your time and patience. 

If I know myself, and the innermost feelin<j of my lieart, I am 
a better friend to the Union than many of those who, wliiie 
loudly professing their devotion, are steadily pursuing a course 
of policy that has already alienated a considerable portion of its 
citizens, and will assuredly bring about its dissolution. It is 
under the influence of this attachment, that I have lent my feeble 
aid in opposition to that policy. Neither force nor coercion can 
preserve a Union volantarili/ formed on the basis of perfect equality ; 
nor do I believe it possible to preserve or perpetuate this Con- 
federation by any attempts to extend the powers of the General 
Government beyond the limits prescribed by the Constitution, 
strictly construed, agreeably to its letter and spirit. The first 
attempt to coerce any one of its members will be the handwriting 
ON the avall, predicting the speedy and certain fate of the Union. 
It is not to be presumed that great Stales, many of tliem equal 
in extent to powerful kingdoms, and inhabited by increasing 
millions of freemen, jealous of their rights, brave, high-spirited, 
and energetic, can be held together except by a voluntary cohe- 
sion. This Confederation may be likened to the great system of 
the universe, and it is, only, by the benign and gentle influence 
of attraction, that the bright stars of our constellation can be 
kept in their orbits. Those who attempt to bridle or spur them, 
will, in the end, fare like the rash fool who aspired to direct the 
chariot of the sun. 

I am, gentlemen, your obd't serv't, 

J. K. PAULDING. 

To F. D. Richardson, H. H. Raymond, W. H. Peronneau— Com- 
mittee, &c., &c. 
Charleston, South Carolina. 



/ 

THE RIGHT TO SECEDE. 



We are livings in an age of "Construction," and where neither 
the letter nor the spirit of the Charter, will suit the Construction- 
ist, a higher-law-doctrine is referred to, and the "bed of Pro- 
crustes" is to settle the question. Let us search the history of 
the world ; let us exhaust the records of every nation on the 
globe ; let us go back to the days of Genesis, and let us examine 
them, as we progress, to the period which produced Washington, 
and Hamilton, and Jefferson, and Marsliall, and Madison, and 
Jay; let us continue to our own time, — the time of Webster, and 
Clay, and Calhoun, — and we shall find nothing more illustrative 
of this proposition — this wild and insane construction, than is 
visible at the very moment we are writing; than the efforts now 
making to subvert the Constitution of the United States, by quot- 
ing the Constitution itself as authority for the enormities" which 
its enemies are striving to perpetrate ! It is claimed that we are 
"one people" — but truth is fearlessly denied: falsehood is reck 
lessly and knowingly affirmed: and the Bible is to be remodeled 
to answer the purposes of fraud and violence: and the human 
heart is to be changed, and embittered, that hatred to the Slave- 
holder may be freely indulged. Verily, it would seem that iVIr. 
Seward is right, and that the "conflict" between the North and 
South is "irrepressible"! 

As the Scriptures themselves were intended to inculcate a firm 
belief in the attributes of a Supreme Being, and to encourage a 
full reliance upon /7is mercy ; so was the Constitution of the 
United States conceived, and executed by brave and pious men, to 
establish a solemn and incontrovertible fact — to assure mankind, 
both at home and abroad, "That the People" of these Stales con- 
sented to be "united" for certain great and f^ec/f/?^ purposes ; 
and those purposes being achieved, none other could emenate 
from the instrument they, the Stales, had created, but with their 
concurrence and /or then- benefit: and that the Sovereignty, by 
virtue of which they agreed to be united, remains, and will for- 
ever remain, as perfect as though the Convention, which adopted 
the Constitution, had never assembled, and the leagKe had never 



31 

been thought of. The spirit of mis-rule has simply mistaken the 
exercise of Sovereignly for the ahandoninent of Sovereignty. 

We quote tlie first words of the Preamble of the Constitu- 
tion, where it is written, " We, the People of the United States, 
[why not we, the People of North America — or ice, the People 
of the American Nation ?] " in order to form a more perfect 
union; establisli justice; ensure domestic tranquility; provide 
for the common defence; promote the general welfare; and 
secure tlie blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, 
do establish this Constitution, /or the United States of America." 
Each State of the '-Old Thirteen" had, and now has. its own 
Constitution ; and each of these thirteen consented to the crea- 
tion of another Constitution — the first for sepurnte; and the second 
for combined purposes, and for united action, to carry out those 
purposes — but on specified condilions : and those condilions are 
plainly enumerated. 

Now if it can be shown that tliese were enacted by Sovereign 
States; and if it is made manifest that these purposes, are each 
and severally, being daily violated and disregarded, by certain 
parties to the Compact; we would ask, by what principle of inter- 
natioaal law, the conclusion is obtained, tliat other parties to the 
compact, in wliich o// are Sovereigns and tlierefore all are equal, 
have neither remedy nor redress? Aye, none, save that which is 
furnished by an abject or hopeless submission ! or by war and 
revolution and by successful resistance to invasion and coercion! 
When a compact is violated, it ceases to be a compact (piand those 
who are injured by the violation. This is Mr. Webster's doc- 
trine; and it is the doctrine of common sense and of common 
justice: else every bargain would be a fraud; and every league, 
a fallacy; and every union a despotism. L'-t us turn now, even 
at the risk of being tiresome, to the bond we liave given and 
see whether the condilions, without which its validity cannot be 
sustained, liave been faithfully performed. 

1st. To our "more perfect Union." This has ended by a pub- 
lic declaration, that rce, of the South, liabitually earn our daily 
bread by an institution Avliich is liateful to the sensibilities of 
our Northern brethren, at variance with every moral obligation, 
and necessarily to be abolislied. 

2d. Our desire to "establisli Justice" is made to mean, not 
only that the labor of the South is to enrich the North, but that 
it is to be directed and controlled by fanaticism and madness; or 
that it is to be rendered by a causeless hostility to us and to our 
institutions, the bitterest curse that ever humanity was afflicted 
with. 

3d. We bargained to ''ensure domestic tranquiliiy," and in fur- 
therance of tins, Virginia, as a Slave State, is invaded and 
assailed; /icr soil, desecrated ; Afr citizens, murdered; her laws, 
ridiculed : and our co-obligors to the bond, so far from inter- 
posing, e.\press no other regrets but that the incendiaries and 



32 

assassins have been punished; afnd make no other demonstration, 
but by expressing their utter horror and disgust, that the shedding 
of innocent blood has not been considered as a sacred service to 
God and as a solemn duty to His creatures. 

4th, In order to " provide for the common defence," one section 
of our country enthusiastically encourages rebellion in anoth- 
er; and in every Cotton State in the Confederacy, slaves are to 
be provided with arms to be used against their masters. 

5lh. To "promote i\\e (general Avelfare," ihe particular interests 
o[ fifteen States are to be sacrificed; the internal commerce of 
thirty-three States, now estimated at four thousand millions of dol- 
lars, is to be abolished. And why ? That four millions of negroes, 
who have been accustomed to restraint, may be turned loose upon 
the world, and that their legitimate owners may forthwith be in 
bondage. 

Gth. In order to ''secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves anrt 
our posterity," we, of the South, are to be deprived of our prop- 
erty ; to be branded as enemies of the human race; and, finally, 
according to the diction and baste of a Senator from Massa- 
chusetts, (Mr. Sumner), to be "driven, like poisoned vermin, 
to die in our holes;" and, as if to suit the action to the word, 
already we are called on to see the inhabitants of a sister State* 
selected as victims to that poison, which the philanthropy of 
our Northern brethren has so generously and bountifully sup- 
plied. 

Thus has the North performed the conditions of the bond. 
What are the results to the South 1 Whole towns have been 
laid in ashes. Farms have been desolated. Crops, which were 
the result of industry and of labor judiciously applied, have 
been laid waste and destroyed. Fathers and brothers were 
to be butchered ; mothers and daughters, exposed to brutali- 
ties, the most atrocious and revolting ; children, exterminated ; 
and the first act in the drama requires us to become the exe- 
cutioners of slaves, transmitted to us by our ancestors as per- 
sons we are bound to protect and defend. And let the South be 
admonished that all this is to be done, because a domestic insti- 
tution is not abandoned — an institution ordained by the Creator 
and recognized by His law; that feeds and clothes the world ; 
that gives to the barbarian a knowledge of God and the consola- 
tions of a benign religion; that confers on the savage the benefits 
of civilized life; that protects the negro against the vicissitudes 
of infancy and old age; that keeps him in the only position, where 
he can be useful to society and harmless to himself; that is 
expressly provided for in the Constitution : because it is not abol- 
ished even at the cost of endless suffering ; of anarchy and 
chaos, where order now prevails ; of servile conflict, where 
allegiance now exists; of misery and anguish to black and 

* Texas. 



33 

white, where now the happiness of both is secure; of poverty 
and want, where abundance and comfort are now. And, my 
countrymen, let us now ask a single but an essential question": 
Is this fiction or is it fact! If we have spoken trutlifully, as 
we assuredly desire to do, is there a solitary condition on which 
we signed the bond, that lias not been openly, barbarously and 
insultingly violated? Is there any injury so consuming a« that 
with which we are threatened ? Is there any epithet, the vilest 
and the basest, that has not been applied to us? Is there any 
fallacy so extreme as the idea that liberty can exist where these 
atrocities have neither check nor remedy ? There is a remedy. 
The sovereignty of the States; and this sovereignty is record- 
ed in every article and ia almost every section of the Con- 
stitution ; on every page it is made manifest; and by every 
reasonable construction, it is intended to be regarded as the 
cardinal principle by which the government "lives and has its 
being." The difficulty is, not to perceive arguments to sustain 
this doctrine, bui to find time to express them. Take the 
legislative branch of the Government. The House of Represent- 
atives is the most democratic ; and in it population alone is 
represented. Do the people of tlie United Slates elect ? or do 
the several States ciioose ? An ordinary freshman may answer 
the question. The States of course. The States fix the time 
and manner of holding elections; and the States count the 
votes and declare the result. So much for the popular branch of 
the Federal Legislature. As to the Senate, Stales and only 
States are there recognized — Delaware taking rank with INew 
York : and in all appointments to the Supreme Court; of Minis- 
ters to foreign countries ; of officers of every grade, at home and 
abroad ; " Confirmation" must be obtained equally from Rhode 
Island and Pennsylvania, or equally from the largest and the 
smallest: because all are Sovereign. Again. In the event of 
vacancy in either branch of the Federal Legislature, the Execu- 
tive of the States issues writs of election ; and the people of the 
States vote or do not vote, just as they please. 

If the President is to be elected, who appoints the electors? 
The people in their aggregate capacity? or the States as individual 
communities? The States, as the Legislatures of each shall 
direct: and if no election is made — what then? Why the 
Senate, Avhere the people are not known and wiiere States are 
supreme, having ascertained this failure to elect, sends the case 
to the House of Representatives, and there the vote is taken — 
how? by numbers? No. But by States: each State having 
one vote, without reference to territory or to population. And if 
here again, no decision is obtained by a given time — fourtii day 
of March — the Senate, or States representing Sovereignty, re- 
sume all power, and from two names, (the higliest on the list,) 
declare, by a single ballot, who shall be President; and the per- 
son so chosen is President beyond the reach either of people or 
numbers. Is there no sovereignty in all this? 
c3 



34 

■ Turn to Section 8th: "Congress shall have power to levy and 
collect taxes," &c., &c. Mark, not right, but power. From 
whom was this power derived ? I answer, from the Conventions 
held in the States, and which adopted the Constitution. And 
how did those Conventions assemble ? I answer, ag'ain, by con- 
sent of each separate State. And where did they assemble? 
Again, I answer, within the borders of each State, and under the 
protection of each State. And what other authority existed at 
the time for legislating or for deciding on the subject? None on 
earth. What more is required ? But to make assurance doubly 
sure, see 10th article of Amendments, where it is written that 
powers not delegated, &c., ''are reserved to the States respectively, 
or to the people." How and by whom reserved ? Why by those 
who had the power to delegate, that is the States, which could 
adopt or reject the Constitution as they pleased, and without con- 
sulting any human tribunal. 

In sense, in letter, and \n spirit, "people" meant, and now 
mean people of the States, and not of the United States, in 
their aggregate capacity ; and if the Constitution is now to be 
amended, the States only can do so: they created, and they only 
can amend. 

The Government of the United States has a flag — and does that 
flag show its consolidated supremacy ? No. [t declares to the 
world that it is a Government made up of delegated powers; and 
it shows by the number of its stars the number of sovereign 
States, which have delegated to the Federal Government all the 
power that it possesses. 

Sovereignty clearly exists in the States, and is, in its nature 
and essence, separate and distinct. And if it exists, it may 
be exercised, and that exercise can depend only upon its own 
will — its own conception of what is due to policy or to character. 

The Old Thirteen, assuredly, entered the Union as Sovereigns. 
Their voluntary entrance was an act of sovereignty. They dele- 
gated, for the purposes named in the preamble to the Consti- 
tution, the powers enumerated in section 8; and subsequently by 
the 10th article of Amendments, they expressly reserved to them- 
selves those which were never delegated : in a word, they parted 
with no rights — they simply conferred powers, that duties might 
be performed. They had the right to retire from the Conven- 
tion. They never compromised that, or any other right : and 
that of seceding from the Union is as perfect now, as was then 
the right to enter into it. It is absurd to talk of this right to 
secede not being conferred by the Constitution. The Constitu- 
tion can confer no right upon the States ; and the simple and only 
inquiry is, where is the power to coerce a State delegated to the 
Federal Government? If that power is not given, the argument 
is at an end. 

The injured party has a right to secede, quietly and in peace ; 
and the denial of that right is just cause for war, Mr. Douglas to 



35 

the contrary notwithstanding. No amount of oppression or of 
violence, can destroy that right : because it is not derivative, but 
inhererit in the party possessing it and defending it. The States 
earned and acquired that right by the Revolution of 177G, and 
they hold it in fee. The Constitution acknowledges it; the Laws 
of the United States acknowledge it; and the Mother Country 
acknowledges it. Let the bonds of South Carolina, or of any other 
State be placed in market in London or Liverpool, and we shall 
see at once how far the States are known and trusted. 

It is not our purpose to enter into any metaphysical discussion 
as to the difference between right and power; but we will 
briefly say, that while power is ofttimes exercised bv robbers, 
pirates and highwaymen; right is forever vested in the legitimate 
owner. 

One word more. We have said that any State that feels lier- 
self aggrieved, may retire from the Confederacy and seek 
safety within her own borders; or she may join other retiring 
States, who having a common interest, may rest upon a common 
remedy. Does any sane man doubt that Massachusetts could, 
either alone or with other communities in New England, take the 
ground that Slavery is repugnant to her sense of morality, and 
therefore that her political association with Slaveholders is no 
longer possible? Can it be doubted that such being her solemn 
convictions, she could find lier remedy in those reserved rights 
alluded to in the lOlh Amendment ? And what Southern man 
would hesitate to stigmatize him as a ruffian, who would propose 
to coerce Massachuretts into measures at variance with her liap- 
piness, destructive to her society, and fatal to her relations with 
her fellow-men in every quarter of the globe? And who is 
there on our side of Mason and Dixon's line, that would excite 
against her, the John Browns that can always be found when 
murder is to be committed ? Who is there that would subscribe 
to send emissaries to invade her soil ; to burn her barns and her 
dwellings; to poison her Avells and her watercourses, or avail 
themselves of temporary strength to put her beyond the pale of 
civilization; to send armies or navies to shed the blood of her 
people, or to trample her into submission? If there be such a 
man, he is no countryman of ours. No; we should say, "throw 
the tea overboard" if you please; ive shall neither help you nor 
harm you. Yes ! we should say so, upon the ground that each 
State has a right to secede from this Union, because this is the 
principle upon which the Republic was formed; it is the princi- 
ple of all Constitutional Law, and it is for the injured parties 
(who perceiving that ruin and desolation make the alternative) 
to decide upon the application of the principle ; and if that 
prerogative is denied, then are they living under a tyranny more 
or less revolting or degrading, as a corrupt majority may decide 
to inflict. The gravity of this measure of secession and the 



36 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



012 025 936 2 



stupendous consequences connected with it, will always furnish as 
much restraint as is sufficient or wholesome. 

The 'staples of ttie South have been necessary to the North. 
We have continuously furnished those staples, and we have con- 
sented to see her enriched by our labour. We have warned her 
that a separation would follow their continued and unholy 
assaults. They have rejected these warnings and elected Mr. 
Lincoln. They have dared us to resist; they have taunted 
us with our weakness ; they have menaced us with war and 
invasion from without, and with sedition from within. We have 
submitted, and are submitting, to their rapacity, their cruelty 
and their hatred. But it is possible, we have greater evils yet 
before us. When new States are admitted; when Abolition 
becomes stronger and stronger; when the Supreme Court is re- 
modeled; when the power to amend developes the power to 
destroy — how are we to stem the torrent or avoid the cataract? 
In what place are we to seek for shelter, if the right to retreat 
before our enemies, or to retire within our bonders, is repudiated 
and denied ? When the two-fifths doctrine is expunged ; the 
rendition of fugitive slaves is looked upon as a remnant of bar- 
barism; when the eligibility to hold office is confined to those who 
eschew slavery as a sin ; when we are threatened with fire and 
sword, even in our hiding-places at home ; and when poison is 
openly prescribed and provided for the Cotton States of the Con- 
federacy — where, then, shall ive be? Who will be our masters? 
Where will be the spirit of our ancestors? Who will teach us 
the footpath to their graves ? W^hat says the South ? 

STATES. 



Evans & Cogswell's Steam-Fower Presses, 3 Broad Str«et, Charleston, S. C. 



